Printer-friendly version Email story link

Metro wants supplemental I-5 bridge to be studied further

Council asks Columbia River Task Force to do environmental report

By Jim Redden

The Portland Tribune, Feb 23, 2007, Updated Oct 30, 2009 (8 Reader comments)

ADVERTISEMENTS

Building a second Interstate 5 bridge connecting Portland to Vancouver should be formally studied as a way to relieve congestion at the major interstate connection, according to the Metro Council.

The elected regional council voted Wednesday to recommend that a supplemental bridge be formally studied by the Columbia River Crossing task force, which is considering solutions to the congestion problems on and around the existing I-5 bridge.

The 39-member bi-state task force is scheduled to recommend proposals for full Draft Environmental Impact Studies on Feb. 27. The task force staff has recommended building a large replacement bridge that would also carry a new light rail line or express bus lanes. The cost of such a bridge and related highway interchange work is estimated at between $2 billion and $6 billion.

Saying the public deserves to know whether a lower-cost option would significantly reduce congestion, the council approved a resolution calling for the task force to also study “a supplemental bridge built to current seismic standards to carry cars, trucks, high capacity transit, bicycles and pedestrians.” The resolution also called for a study of land-use alternatives to reduce the number of commuters in the five-mile stretch of I-5 that includes the bridge.

The Metro vote followed hours of public testimony. Those opposing the large replacement bridge said it was too expensive and would only encourage more people to commute between the two states. Even those on record as supporting a replacement bridge — including the Portland Business Alliance — favored including the supplemental bridge in future studies.

The resolution did not specify a design for the supplemental bridge or estimate its cost.

The Columbia River Crossing task force will meet from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday in the Portland offices of the Oregon Department of Transportation, 123 N.W. Flanders St.

Even at $2 billion, the replacement bridge would be the most expensive transportation project in the region’s history and could require tolls on both I-5 and I-205 to pay for it. The task force will not make a final decision on what project to recommend for another two years.

Facebook	Digg	Del.icio.us
Newsvine	Stumbleupon	Reddit

Reader comments

Re: Metro wants supplemental I-5 bridge to be studied further

I would agree that there needs a new I-5 bridge, especially with the 8 BILLION Dollar price tag on it. There must be a better and less expensive way of doing it.

Because with that initial $8B figure, the city and state could do wonders with it. For example, pay off debts, finance health care, and many many more necessary expenditures.

"Tommy"

(email verified)

Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Re: Metro wants supplemental I-5 bridge to be studied further

If $2 billion to $6 billion along the I-5 does not reduce congestion like the 1-205 interchange and bridge did 20 years ago,

then, it should not be done. This should be considered highway project, not a transit project.

The solution to the I-5 problem was killed along with the westside bypass and replaced with the westside Max that didn't

address the coming congestion problems.

Highway engineers know how build us out of congestion, by adding more capacity to the system. They always have in the

past. Their replacement the social planners believe we will move out of our fast, effect, comfortable autos and move to slow

and uncomfortable transit.

The Metro area transit ridership has remained most flat sense the social planners took over transportation and have dumped

billions into the transit system.

98% of the people use the roads to get to where they are going, using autos, trucks, school buses, transit buses or bikes.

It's time to add capacity to the road system to handle the density that the planners are planning.

"highway project, not a transit project"

(email verified)

Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 01:14 AM

Re: Metro wants supplemental I-5 bridge to be studied further

Unless we invest now in more regional highway capacity with the west side by-pass and 3rd bridge over the Columbia, we are not going to see much (if any) real economic growth in our region. Policy makers need to understand that Max and buses don't move workers, goods, and services efficiently for most companies. We are effectively choking out any potential future growth. Portland will soon be like Bend where there's only wealthy retired folks and minimum wage service jobs that one can't live on...

"WEST SIDE BY-PASS & 3RD BRIDGE NEEDED 10 YEARS AGO..."

(email verified)

Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:47 AM

Re: Metro wants supplemental I-5 bridge to be studied further

The more roads and bridges we build, the longer the commutes, the greater the congestion. Don't believe me? Go to LA! Want more bridges and highways and congestion and longer commutes? Go to any other city bigger than Portland. What to live in a "grown up" city? Go there, don't try to turn Portland into one.

Get rid of the billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to growth, and we won't need any more bridges and roads. Instead we'll be removing them, and we'll all be the wealthier for it.

"Taxpayer"

(email verified)

Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:21 PM

Re: Metro wants supplemental I-5 bridge to be studied further

Roads and bridges don't create congestion, density does. When you add more kids to a school district you add more

classrooms. When sewers reach capacity, add more sewers.

If you want to compare LA to Portland you must look at the fact that the LA area is the most dense area in the US.

see http://www.demographia.com/db-porla.htm

The LA area has less freeways miles per person than Portland and higher densities. If the Portland area stops adding capacity

to it's freeways and adds density we will be just like LA.

Metro wrote about this in a Report called "Metro Measured"

By way of contrast, common perceptions of Los Angeles suggest low density, high per capita road mileage and intolerable

congestion. In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided. By the

same token, with respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate.'

See http://saveportland.com/por/metro_docs_list_with_quotes-02.htm

L.A. may have a lot of freeways compared to the Portland area but compared to the population of the

If your concerned about subsidizing growth look and urban renewal and the Smart Growth policies of Portland

http://saveportland.com/por/UR/UR_Taxes.htm

"Density and Smart Growth = congestion"

(email verified)

Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 01:43 AM

Re: Metro wants supplemental I-5 bridge to be studied further

Roads and bridges don't create congestion

I agree, traffic creates congestion. The more people drive the more traffic they create and the more congestion there is.

density does.

Density is just residential population/land area. FOr instance, the central downtown business district Portland isn't really very dense. It has a lot of open space, parking lots and office buildings with no people living in them.

Highway engineers know how build us out of congestion, by adding more capacity to the system. They always have in the past.

When was the last time Portland did not have any congestion?

The problem really is limited access highways. By channeling traffic they take what traffic there is and concentrate it, creating congestion. That congestion can be on the freeway, on roads that provide the "limited access" to the freeways or on the roads that allow traffic to cross the freeway.

Adding capacity to a freeway guarantees that there will be more traffic wherever the vehicles get on and off the freeway. It also means that more trips will use motor vehicles, since they are the only kind of transportation the freeway serves. The result is more traffic and congestion, not less.

This is why there is congestion in every city in the country and it keeps getting worse as more freeways are built.

"Ross Williams"

(email verified)

Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 10:25 PM

Re: Metro wants supplemental I-5 bridge to be studied further

Ross quote

"I agree, traffic creates congestion. The more people drive the more traffic they

create and the more congestion there is."

Density = traffic and more people driving.

So why are we adding density without adding capacity?

"Density not traffic, creates congestion"

(email verified)

Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Re: Metro wants supplemental I-5 bridge to be studied further

"So why are we adding density without adding capacity?"

Because these space-case hippies want everyone to walk to work! They think cars will just disappear and we will all ride our bikes to get our groceries.